Internet-Draft Dynamic IPv6 Mcast Addr Group ID Updates July 2023
Karstens, et al. Expires 25 January 2024 [Page]
Network Working Group
Intended Status:
Standards Track
N. Karstens
Garmin International
D. Farinacci
M. McBride

Updates to Dynamic IPv6 Multicast Address Group IDs


Describes limitations of the existing range of dynamic IPv6 multicast addresses specified in RFC3307. Recommends replacing these allocations with a new table in the IPv6 Multicast Address Space Registry, to be managed by IANA and updated by RFC. Suggests initial contents of the new table: a reduced allocation for MADCAP (RFC2730) and solicited-node multicast addresses (which were not previously noted in RFC3307).

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 January 2024.

1. Introduction

Section 2 of [RFC3307] defines the lower 32 bits of the IPv6 address, which are mapped directly to the link-layer, as the group ID, and then assigns ranges of group ID values based on how they are allocated. Section 4.3 describes dynamic assignment of group ID values and lists two different approaches (server allocation and host allocation). However, both approaches are assigned the same range of group ID values, which means they cannot coexist without risking an address collision. Also concerning is that the range for dynamic assignment overlaps with the range used for solicited-node multicast addresses (see Section 2.7.1 of [RFC4291]).

Only one server allocation protocol has been defined so far (see [RFC2730]), but [I-D.karstens-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps] advocates developing a decentralized, zero-configuration host allocation protocol. This document updates the dynamic IPv6 multicast group ID ranges to better align with current practices for protocol number assignment and to support development of additional dynamic allocation protocols.

1.1. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

2. Updated Dynamic Multicast Group IDs

Existing group ID allocations specified in [RFC3307], Section 4.3 and [RFC4291], Section 2.7.1 are summarized in the following table:

Table 1: Existing Allocations


Server allocation (MADCAP)

Host allocation
0xFF000000-0xFFFFFFFF Solicited-node

This document updates the allocations in [RFC3307], Section 4.3 and moves them into a new registry in the IPv6 Multicast Address Space Registry registry group. The registry shall be populated with the following entries:

Table 2: Updated Allocations
Range Description Reference
0x80000000-0x8FFFFFFF MADCAP [RFC2730]
0x90000000-0xFEFFFFFF Reserved
0xFF000000-0xFFFFFFFF Solicited-node multicast addresses [RFC4291], Section 2.7.1

This reduces the range previously available for MADCAP, while still providing a sizable allocation. In addition, this documents the range used for solicited-node multicast addresses and reserves the remaining entries for future protocol development.

3. Security Considerations

This document does not expand on any security considerations beyond what is discussed in [RFC3307].

4. IANA Considerations

IANA should create a new registry named "Dynamic Multicast Group IDs" in the "IPv6 Multicast Address Space Registry" registry group. This registry shall initially contain the entries listed in Table 2. The "Standards Action" registration policy is required to update the registry.

5. Acknowledgement

Special thanks to the National Marine Electronics Association for their contributions in developing marine industry standards and their support for this research.

Thanks also to the members of the PIM working group for their early brainstorming sessions and review of this draft.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <>.
Haberman, B., "Allocation Guidelines for IPv6 Multicast Addresses", RFC 3307, DOI 10.17487/RFC3307, , <>.
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <>.

6.2. Informative References

Karstens, N., Farinacci, D., and M. McBride, "Zeroconf Multicast Address Allocation Problem Statement and Requirements", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-karstens-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps-00, , <>.
Hanna, S., Patel, B., and M. Shah, "Multicast Address Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC 2730, DOI 10.17487/RFC2730, , <>.
Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, , <>.

Authors' Addresses

Nate Karstens
Garmin International
Dino Farinacci
Mike McBride